Hello! This is actually my first time asking...

Hello! This is actually my first time asking anyone something. Regarding the kitty doing laundry, I had a story book when I was little that featured that picture. It was exactly the same. The story was told with a series of photos just like that one. Do you have any explanation for that??

Asked by Anonymous

I do! The pictures were taken by Harry Whittier Frees in his Oaks, Pennsylvania studio and they were extremely popular during the 1900s to 1930s.

The Nebraska State Journal, Lincoln, Nebraska, June 2, 1936

One day, Frees, who didn’t even own a camera, put a hat on the family cat and thought “I’d love a picture of that”. So he bought a camera and set up a studio and began.

Frees got his start in 1906 selling postcards of his animal photos. Postcards were only allowed to be printed and issued by the USPS, and they were generally pretty boring and generic, until 1898, when private companies were allowed to begin printing them. By 1900 it had become major fad, sending and collecting souvenir cards, and postcards were a booming industry. He sent a couple pictures in to a leading postcard company, thinking maybe they’d take them. The company accepted immediately and printed the photos on their postcards, they sold like hotcakes, and he was offered a three year contract with the company.

The Anaconda Standard, Montana, May 27, 1906

He published multiple books of his works, like The Animal Mother Goose (1922), which had 63 full page photographs. Other books by him include Little Folks of Animal Land (1915), Animal Stories (1916) and Kitty Cat Stories (1917) which was followed with Bunny Stories and Puppy Stories. He also helped illustrate advertisements and other people’s books with his photographs, like Edward Anthony’s The Pussycat Princess in 1922 and did exclusive series for newspapers, usually for Sunday supplements or ongoing features.

It was asked pretty frequently what he did to have the animals sit so well. After all, it was hard to get a good picture of a person back then, let alone an animal in an elaborate pose. People wondered if the animals might be drugged or hurt to hold the poses, but Frees said it was done with a whole lot of patience - and lots of treats. He said that one reason he always used young animals (aside from the fact that they’re darn cute) was that they were easier to work with than older ones.

Fitchburg Sentinel, Massachusetts, November 13, 1935

However, some people doubt whether the animals Frees used were even alive:

“The idea that some of these images are the result of patience is clearly nonsense,” opines Mike Power in one public post beneath an article about Frees. “He admitted that he used a shutter speed of 1/5th second which, in modern terms, is slow. Taxidermy was popular and the Victorians weren’t concerned about it in the way that we are today.” According to an article on dangerousminds.com, Frees used both dead and living animals, but refused to acknowledge the use of stuffed pets. “If Frees’ contemporaries knew that many of the animals in his photos were dead, they probably didn’t care,” the article states. “Victorians and Edwardians had no problem photographing dead things.”

The Ottawa Journal, Ontario, Canada, March 29, 1935

Fitchburg Sentinel, Massachusetts, November 13, 1935

Personally, I don’t think any of the photos I’ve seen were taxidermy. Might the animals have been uncomfortable during the shoots? Maybe a little. I know my cats get pretty surly when I try to put a Santa hat on them for Christmas photos. But I don’t think Frees mistreated them, and I think he had a genuine talent with animals and that he loved them.

Fitchburg Sentinel, Massachusetts, November 13, 1935